Meyers and Briggs Temperament types

EmeraldHope, those titles made me laugh :P Kind of worst-case-scenario titles for the personalities.

I have taken this test in school and college several times, and usually I score as an INTJ. Sometimes INFJ. Today, it came out like this:

Introverted (I) 89%
Intuitive (N) 75%
Thinking (T) 12% --- Seems I am walking a line between "thinking" and "feeling" types.
Judging (J) 33%

I've always heard to do this test quickly and just put the first answer that pops into your head. That proves to be a real challenge for me. I have to stop and analyze myself before I can feel I am giving an accurate answer. Guess that's the T and the J coming out.

I remember in class that the results of these tests rarely came as a surprise. You'd hear what someone tested as and think "Yup, that definitely fits."

Kila said:
It would appear that certain temperaments are more 'critical' problem solvers than others, particularly the N types and even more specifically the NT types. The S types being more concerned with the How questions and concrete reality. The N types more attracted to the abstract and conceptual. I also find it interesting that in the demographic studies done it would seem that S types far outnumber N types, the NT types being the least represented. Now what are the genetics behind that? And are those genetics being manipulated in a variety of ways? Also the Feeling types outnumber the Thinking types, and since by and large feeling is simply a biological response, I have long been very interested in the biology of emotions, and wheat and other substances act as opiates stimulating certain emotional states...??? Now if emotions were my 'food' and I was trying to breed and cross breed an animal to more ideally suit my needs in terms of ease of care as well as nutritional value I would want lots of ESFJ's and ESFP's running around which is exactly what we see demographically. I would want to weed out those pesky ENTP's and INTP's those pesky critical Why asking types.
School does a good job at rewarding the SJ's and the SP's to a large extent and the NF's to a lesser degree but the NT's often do very poorly and hate schooling at least until college. Where they find more of their types represented in the Sciences. Of course, they can be corrupted via ego as the NT ego is usually pretty well developed.

On the subject of emotion, the downfall of the NF is the subjective nature of the very intense emotional states, particularly the Introverted types. So, in terms of 'feeding' these types are also pretty tasty. And not really so hard to deal with as they can be manipulated emotionally and tend to avoid objective reason in favor or subjective value judgments. They do tend to ask the Why questions but not in the true objective sense that an NT approaches those same questions.

This whole forum, it would seem, would have very little appeal to an SJ or SP, which by stunning coincidence makes up the bulk of society demographically.

I am wondering if certain temperaments aren't more prone to 'wake up' and aren't selectively being bred out of the population? And if so how? I can see a multitude of ways that society selects for and reward SJ's and SP's . There is very little reward for being an NT in our current world. It is a constant lonely struggle against the 'flow' of culture.

I dunno...

just some random thoughts and questions while smoking...

I found this very interesting. I'm not sure that it has so much to do with genetics, but that as one moves through the school system, they begin to conform and become other types that they weren't to begin with, or, they are borderline in some areas, and begin to become more SJ or SP. They learn to stop asking why.
 
I've taken many variations of this test, and it's def pretty consistent in it's answer. Apparently, I'm an EFNP. I've come across this description that I can't deny; it's def pretty spot on if I do say so myself. _http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html

Mod Note: Deactivated hyperlink
 
I just finished a lecture done at google by Dario Nardi in regards to the neuroscience of personality. His research seems to be confirming the Myers Briggs personality typing system by how the brain areas light up in different subjects in the brain imagery based on electronic monitoring. Given this, I am wondering if perhaps knowing your type as a basis for starting work, may be helpful in knowing what areas one needs to "work" on to form new synapses in regions that are not used as heavily. He also goes into creative flow and how the whole brain lights up during those times.


Here is the link to the lecture: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA


Author's website- _www.darionardi.com




Here is an overview of the lecture:


UCLA professor and author, Dario Nardi, has discovered that people of different personality types don't merely rely on different brain regions -- they use their brains in fundamentally different ways. Using colorful anecdotes and brain imagery, Dr. Nardi shares key insights from his lab. Among these insights: how people of different personalities can find and sustain a state of creative flow. This talk is suitable for a general audience including those who have passing familiarity with the Myers-Briggs types.

Edit=Quote
 
EmeraldHope said:
I just finished a lecture done at google by Dario Nardi in regards to the neuroscience of personality. His research seems to be confirming the Myers Briggs personality typing system by how the brain areas light up in different subjects in the brain imagery based on electronic monitoring. Given this, I am wondering if perhaps knowing your type as a basis for starting work, may be helpful in knowing what areas one needs to "work" on to form new synapses in regions that are not used as heavily. He also goes into creative flow and how the whole brain lights up during those times.


Here is the link to the lecture: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA


Author's website- _www.darionardi.com




Here is an overview of the lecture:


UCLA professor and author, Dario Nardi, has discovered that people of different personality types don't merely rely on different brain regions -- they use their brains in fundamentally different ways. Using colorful anecdotes and brain imagery, Dr. Nardi shares key insights from his lab. Among these insights: how people of different personalities can find and sustain a state of creative flow. This talk is suitable for a general audience including those who have passing familiarity with the Myers-Briggs types.

Edit=Quote

I saw this video a couple of weeks ago. I found it interesting because it relates personality typing with actual measured brain activity, which seems to give some support to type theory.

Like you, EmeraldHope, I've been wondering about the usefulness of personality typing to the purposes of the Work. I'm not sure if MBTI and similar methods are tapping the Essence or just the False Personality but, nonetheless, it seems to be a usefull guide to help us "map" our strengths and shortcomings and thus help us focus on what needs to be developed. Something like Gurdjieff's "photographs of oneself", osit.
 
This test just came up on another forum I'm on, and apparently I'm the only one who thinks it's a crock?

1) I put more trust in decisions made by my head instead of my heart.

Huh? It's not an "either / or" thing... they're connected, work together? I'm fairly certain I need both of them to do pretty much everything?

2)I see deadlines as flexible.
A flexible deadline? Really? If the word "line" doesn't give that one away, the word "dead" certainly should? I could understand a question like "I ignore deadlines" but this appears to be asking me if I just randomly change the definitions of various words?

3) I prefer looking at the details rather than the "big picture."
OK, so what is the "Big Picture" made of if not the "details" ...green cheese?

4)What's right and wrong depends more on the subjective circumstances (like feelings) of the situation and less about objective facts.
This is the first question that actually made any sense to me,

5) I find it easy to notice and interpret hidden meanings.
Then it went right back to "What?" If something is "easy to notice" then it's not very well hidden now is it?

I gave up at that point...the whole test looks like one big contradiction after another to me. What I haven't figured out yet is if there something wrong with me, or the test, or both? It's probably me, judging from past experience, but these still look like really twisted questions?
 
Guardian said:
This test just came up on another forum I'm on, and apparently I'm the only one who thinks it's a crock?

1) I put more trust in decisions made by my head instead of my heart.

Huh? It's not an "either / or" thing... they're connected, work together? I'm fairly certain I need both of them to do pretty much everything?

2)I see deadlines as flexible.
A flexible deadline? Really? If the word "line" doesn't give that one away, the word "dead" certainly should? I could understand a question like "I ignore deadlines" but this appears to be asking me if I just randomly change the definitions of various words?

3) I prefer looking at the details rather than the "big picture."
OK, so what is the "Big Picture" made of if not the "details" ...green cheese?

4)What's right and wrong depends more on the subjective circumstances (like feelings) of the situation and less about objective facts.
This is the first question that actually made any sense to me,

5) I find it easy to notice and interpret hidden meanings.
Then it went right back to "What?" If something is "easy to notice" then it's not very well hidden now is it?

I gave up at that point...the whole test looks like one big contradiction after another to me. What I haven't figured out yet is if there something wrong with me, or the test, or both? It's probably me, judging from past experience, but these still look like really twisted questions?

Guardian, I too was very frustrated with these online tests. Sometimes they do seem to be nothing more than gibberish. However, after doing a bunch of tests and specially reading a little bit about the jungian theory of cognitive functions and how they relate to one another, I do think there is something valid in it, although it may be very well buried.

But, regardless of whether their underlying theory is valid, the tests themselves are clearly flawed. osit.
 
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - 16 Personality Types

I've searched the forum and haven't found a topic on the below.

I think it's somewhat useful and 'scientific' though I wouldn't call it a 'hard science'. More like a tool to help shine some more light on ones individual machine.


The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment is a psychometric questionnaire designed to measure psychological preferences in how people perceive the world and make decisions. These preferences were extrapolated from the typological theories proposed by Carl Gustav Jung and first published in his 1921 book Psychological Types (English edition, 1923). Jung theorized that there are four principal psychological functions by which we experience the world: sensation, intuition, feeling, and thinking. One of these four functions is dominant most of the time.

Concepts

As the MBTI Manual states, the indicator "is designed to implement a theory; therefore the theory must be understood to understand the MBTI".
Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the theory of psychological type as originally developed by Carl Jung. Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous pairs of cognitive functions:

The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling

The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensation and intuition

Jung believed that for every person each of the functions are expressed primarily in either an introverted or extraverted form. From Jung's original concepts, Briggs and Myers developed their own theory of psychological type, described below, on which the MBTI is based.

Type

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types. None of these types are better or worse; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of type differences. In the same way that writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion). For instance:

ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)

This method of abbreviation is applied to all 16 types.

Four dichotomies

Dichotomies

Extraversion (E) – (I) Introversion
Sensing (S) – (N) Intuition
Thinking (T) – (F) Feeling
Judging (J) – (P) Perception

The four pairs of preferences or dichotomies are shown in the table above.

Note that the terms used for each dichotomy have specific technical meanings relating to the MBTI which differ from their everyday usage. For example, people who prefer judgment over perception are not necessarily more judgmental or less perceptive. Nor does the MBTI instrument measure aptitude; it simply indicates for one preference over another. Someone reporting a high score for extraversion over introversion cannot be correctly described as more extraverted: they simply have a clear preference.

Point scores on each of the dichotomies can vary considerably from person to person, even among those with the same type. However, Isabel Myers considered the direction of the preference (for example, E vs. I) to be more important than the degree of the preference (for example, very clear vs. slight). The expression of a person's psychological type is more than the sum of the four individual preferences. The preferences interact through type dynamics and type development.

Attitudes: extraversion/introversion

Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them. Extraversion means "outward-turning" and introversion means "inward-turning". These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words. Note that extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications.

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called "attitudes". Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things ("extraverted attitude") or the internal world of ideas and reflection ("introverted attitude"). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference for one or the other.

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion "expend" energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

  • Extraverts are "action" oriented, while introverts are "thought" oriented.
  • Extraverts seek "breadth" of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek "depth" of knowledge and influence.
  • Extraverts often prefer more "frequent" interaction, while introverts prefer more "substantial" interaction.
  • Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.

Functions: sensing/intuition (S/N) and thinking/feeling (T/F)

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:
  • The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition
  • The two judging functions, thinking and feeling

According to Jung's typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances.

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere". They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles which are manifested in the data.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of the people involved. Thinkers usually have trouble interacting with people who are inconsistent or illogical, and tend to give very direct feedback to others. They are concerned with the truth and view it as more important than being tactful.

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant function

A diagram depicting the cognitive functions of each type. A type's background color represents its Dominant function, and its text color represents its Auxiliary function.

According to Jung, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant function. Myers called this inferior function the shadow.

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

The 16 Personality Types

ISTJ
Introverted Sensing
with Thinking
ISFJ
Introverted Sensing
with Feeling
INFJ
Introverted iNtuition
with Feeling
INTJ
Introverted iNtuition
with Thinking

ISTP
Introverted Thinking
with Sensing
ISFP
Introverted Feeling
with Sensing
INFP
Introverted Feeling
with iNtuition
INTP
Introverted Thinking
with iNtuition

ESTP
Extraverted Sensing
with Thinking
ESFP
Extraverted Sensing
with Feeling
ENFP
Extraverted iNtuition
with Feeling
ENTP
Extraverted iNtuition
with Thinking

ESTJ
Extraverted Thinking
with Sensing
ESFJ
Extraverted Feeling
with Sensing
ENFJ
Extraverted Feeling
with iNtuition
ENTJ
Extraverted Thinking
with iNtuition

To find detailed description of each, you can just use google or check this out. On top of what 'natural tendencies might be preferred by any one type, it also has a somewhat detailed description of the 'shadow' side which can be illuminating as each group has a 'shadow' side that is more likely to afflict them compared to others.

e.g.

One type may be more likely to obsess about details that are unimportant to the big picture of things or may wrongly suspect others of having hidden motives or agendas or might even have a tendency to be arrogant or boastful, or to demean those who cannot see the same answers etc. Most of these are not unique to any one type but nonetheless, I believe they could be insightful in helping one learn more about their machine.

Conclusion

Personality typing is a tool with many uses. It's especially notable for it's helpfulness in the areas of growth and self-development. Learning and applying the theories of personality type can be a powerful and rewarding experience, if it is used as a tool for discovery, rather than as a method for putting people into boxes, or as an excuse for behavior.

To get an indication of your 'type', take the test here http://personality-testing.info/tests/JUNG.php. This is the same website used for the Machiavelli test. This is how I ran into it. :)
 
Hi,

I have an idea that I need help on.

You know how you can do some of these tests and you get the results and you are like "wow, that is kinda accurate" but usually it is not entirely accurate. Then you do another and you get the same thing or maybe a specific one can describe some aspect accurately but fail in all other aspects and so on so forth. Some of it might not even be a test e.g. astrology or numerology (like many people were impressed by this) etc. In some of these differing tests some things might 'cluster' together if you take them as 'one whole' but you'll have anomalies lying out to the side, things that they can't explain.

Anyways, I am wondering if there is a 'composite' test that measures different things to give you a kind of 'diverse' result or description or a sort of personalized 'user manual'. E.G. You can say right, born on this and that date, you get your star sign, next step, numerology steps in, then a bunch of psychometric questions to test different things in a similar way to the Meyer Briggs Temperament test, maybe even you can add pathology in there, like the dark triad test and in the end all this combine to give you a comprehensive description of your machine. Just like you know, any machine i.e. mechanical instrument can be classified if you know enough about it. Then you are like, right, this is what I am dealing, in a more personalized way as compared to a more 'general' way as is the case usually.

I am sure such a test (or whatever you want to call it) must exist somewhere. Any ideas where one might find it?

What I know about such a test: It won't be entirely mainstream as no mainstream scientist would entertain the idea of numerology or astrology or any such 'nonsense' but it should also not be too 'alternative' as it needs to have some sort of 'scientific' rigor to it. So whoever has it should be both mainstream and not mainstream at the same time, a bit like those crazy electrical universe whiz-kids.

Where would such a person or persons be hiding?
 
luke wilson said:
Hi,

I have an idea that I need help on.

You know how you can do some of these tests and you get the results and you are like "wow, that is kinda accurate" but usually it is not entirely accurate. Then you do another and you get the same thing or maybe a specific one can describe some aspect accurately but fail in all other aspects and so on so forth. Some of it might not even be a test e.g. astrology or numerology (like many people were impressed by this) etc. In some of these differing tests some things might 'cluster' together if you take them as 'one whole' but you'll have anomalies lying out to the side, things that they can't explain.

Anyways, I am wondering if there is a 'composite' test that measures different things to give you a kind of 'diverse' result or description or a sort of personalized 'user manual'. E.G. You can say right, born on this and that date, you get your star sign, next step, numerology steps in, then a bunch of psychometric questions to test different things in a similar way to the Meyer Briggs Temperament test, maybe even you can add pathology in there, like the dark triad test and in the end all this combine to give you a comprehensive description of your machine. Just like you know, any machine i.e. mechanical instrument can be classified if you know enough about it. Then you are like, right, this is what I am dealing, in a more personalized way as compared to a more 'general' way as is the case usually.

I am sure such a test (or whatever you want to call it) must exist somewhere. Any ideas where one might find it?

What I know about such a test: It won't be entirely mainstream as no mainstream scientist would entertain the idea of numerology or astrology or any such 'nonsense' but it should also not be too 'alternative' as it needs to have some sort of 'scientific' rigor to it. So whoever has it should be both mainstream and not mainstream at the same time, a bit like those crazy electrical universe whiz-kids.

Where would such a person or persons be hiding?


All I can tell you is what I've found out on my own: There are no 'tried and trues' to figuring out the contents of 'your machine'. There are no singular tests or scales or formulas involved.

In short, human beings are complicated, and figuring out the contents of your own head is going to take time, diligence, and work.

Your best bet? Live your life, plumb the depths of what's known about how the mind works, and yes, if it offers insights that you can use, take the psych tests. Just be aware that these tests do not prove anything with solid evidence. For that part? You still need a network of dedicated people willing to tell you the truth as best they can see it.

That is worth more than any number of arbitrary 'tests', osit.
 
luke wilson said:
Hi,

I have an idea that I need help on.

You know how you can do some of these tests and you get the results and you are like "wow, that is kinda accurate" but usually it is not entirely accurate. Then you do another and you get the same thing or maybe a specific one can describe some aspect accurately but fail in all other aspects and so on so forth. Some of it might not even be a test e.g. astrology or numerology (like many people were impressed by this) etc. In some of these differing tests some things might 'cluster' together if you take them as 'one whole' but you'll have anomalies lying out to the side, things that they can't explain.

Anyways, I am wondering if there is a 'composite' test that measures different things to give you a kind of 'diverse' result or description or a sort of personalized 'user manual'. E.G. You can say right, born on this and that date, you get your star sign, next step, numerology steps in, then a bunch of psychometric questions to test different things in a similar way to the Meyer Briggs Temperament test, maybe even you can add pathology in there, like the dark triad test and in the end all this combine to give you a comprehensive description of your machine. Just like you know, any machine i.e. mechanical instrument can be classified if you know enough about it. Then you are like, right, this is what I am dealing, in a more personalized way as compared to a more 'general' way as is the case usually.

I am sure such a test (or whatever you want to call it) must exist somewhere. Any ideas where one might find it?

What I know about such a test: It won't be entirely mainstream as no mainstream scientist would entertain the idea of numerology or astrology or any such 'nonsense' but it should also not be too 'alternative' as it needs to have some sort of 'scientific' rigor to it. So whoever has it should be both mainstream and not mainstream at the same time, a bit like those crazy electrical universe whiz-kids.

Where would such a person or persons be hiding?

Hi luke. I think you're taking the 'machine' metaphor a little too literally. If you were truly nothing but a machine, then how could you have come up with such a great description of a currently unknown test?

In any case, would you describe what you're looking for in terms of some universal knowledge of human psychology - something objective and reliable enough we could all use to understand ourselves better and improve our lives, individually and collectively, socially and politically; and, maybe in the process, find the right treatment for the disease of psychopathology?

If your answer is yes, then that is exactly what obyvatel is asking for help with here.

According to Lobaczewski (Political Ponerology), there are "great psychological differences between individual members of the species Homo sapiens" and according to obyvatel one "deficiency of the natural world view is its lack of universality." So, here is a possibility for a real-time discussion that might create the very thing which might serve your purposes.

I plan on participating in that discussion soon. I just invested 6 hours (two days, three hours each) reading and studying the two posts and looking up words in order to get a better understanding of the material in question and now it's time for bed.
 
i finished reading Nichol’s chapter on ‘the place of aim’ in vol 1 book on G & O which me thinking about a video i had watched recently where the video's author discusses how the intp's mind is wired, and the pros and cons of the intp personality.




intp’s may also find this article useful in their work on self observation with the emotional centre.

The INTP's Guide to Dealing With Emotions
 
Back
Top Bottom